Charles Martel - The battle of tours

[Didz]

give me a break, they were persecuted then and are still persecuted now. perhaps you should speak to some copts before mouthing off about what a nice ride they have had.

I won't even begin to try and explain to you how unhelpful that comment and your attitude is when considering the historical facts, and I would suggest that if you wish to debate the point you begin by carrying out some basic research on the subject before posting.

The actual history of the area and the relationship between muslims and christians has been subject to a number of changes over time and specific location, therefore generalities are meaningless.

The key factors affecting the relationship between the Copts and their Arab overlords being the level of resistance and revolt being offered by leaders of the local population and the changes in leadership and policy amongst their rulers.

The area now known as Eygypt actually came under Arab rule in 641 AD with little local resistance being afforded by the mostly Christian population.

However, there was a number of revolts soon afterwards and further uprisings would occur for the next 200 years. Some of these revolts were put down with considerable brutality. Specific mention is made of the Beshmorite uprising staged in 750AD which was crushed by Marrwan II, the Umayyad Caliph at that time. The last large scale uprising occured a hundred years later and was brutally crushed by the Abbasid Caliph, Al-Ma'mun.

Further minor uprisings continued to occur over the next 300 years including the revolt of the Christian inhabitants of Qift, which was suppressed by Saladins brother Al-Adil in 1176, following which 3,000 Copts were executed and hung on tree's outside the city.

However, even Coptic history acknowledges that these revolts were largely motivated by the excessively high taxation imposed upon them by various Arab Caliphs, and by actions taken by some Caliphs to erase Coptic art and culture. The destruction of the Alexandria library by the Umayyad Caliph is specifically mentioned following his decree that the Arabic language should be used instead of Coptic language in the governance of Egypt.

I found this summary on a Coptic website describing the nature of the Arab occupation of Eygypt.

"The Arab rulers primary interest was in exacting the maximum financial gain out of the rich land of Egypt. John of Nikiu in his chronicles indicates that Amer ibin Alass, after the conquest of Egypt, " increased the taxes to the extent of 22 batr of gold till all the people hid themselves owing to the greatness of the tribulation, and could not find the wherewithal to pay."

The Ommyiads followed by the other dynasties instituted heavy taxes including poll tax or Algyzya, tribute and different exactions.

At times the Arab rulers found it convenient to throw prominent Copts, e.g. a Bishop or Pope, in jail and request ransom to release them.

The Umayyad Caliph Suliman ibin abed Almalek reflected this policy, in writing his appointed ruler of Egypt " to milk the camel until it gives no more milk, and until it milks blood".

Though some of the Arab rulers were moderate, most were oppressive, cruel and committed a lot of atrocities against the Coptic population.

The ultimate policy of the Muslim Arab rulers changed gradually from maximum financial gain to Isalmization either through incentives of reduced taxation, or by outright violence and force.

Arab and Turkic rulers from different dynasties continued to levy heavy taxation to impoverish the Copts, instituted policies to eradicate the Coptic culture, language, leadership, and initiated violence and pogroms against the Coptic population."
Extract from http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/

As you can see even this Coptic version of history, which is hardly likely to be unbiased, makes no mention of conversion by sword and slaughter which was the question raised by Sirex1.

Indeed the impression is that the Arab policy was largely dictated by the desire to maximize revenue and expliot the local populations ability to generate wealth, rather than to concern themselves with which God they happened to worship.

The point being that to impose a revisionist version of history on the past based upon an overriding concept of religious hatred is actually misleading, even though it might serve the motives of our current leaders.

He didn't say that they had such a nice time, though it wasn't constant and brutal persecution, it was varying degrees depending on how the "general mood" was among Muslims, though they were usually encouraged to convert to Islam, like other Christians.

Glad to see someone read my post. The only issue I would take with the above statement is that in truth its probably wrong to place the onus on the mood amongst Muslims. The policy towards non-Mulsims at any particular time was largely dictated by the Arab ruler responsible for that specific area and whilst that policy probably influenced the mood of the general muslim population its not really correct to suggest that it was a reflection of some universal muslim attitude towards non-muslims. In fact, as has been pointed out elsewhere the Arabic rulers over this period spent more time fighting each other than persecuting non-muslims, and in many cases allied themselves with non-muslims to overthrown their muslim rivals. Therefore what are are seeing for the most part are the results of powerful Arabic families competing for power and financial gain with the Muslim faith being weilded only when it is politically valuable to expliot it.